Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 How in the hell did this pass under the radar? Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro- trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will --and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me. I'm a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain. -- Joe Lieberman ABC's "This Week" March 30, 2008 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 maybe everyone has been too swept up with the start of baseball?????? haha i dont have a clue, i dont think obama would want that to get out, which means the media wont cover it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I heard this on NPR a couple days ago. Don't get me started on my opinions about Lieberman swinging from party to party. I personally felt that once he lost the CT Democratic primary he shouldn't have been allowed to switch to Independent status and run again. But that he did, still touting the Democratic priorities. And now, here he is, siding with a Republican. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 maybe everyone has been too swept up with the start of baseball?????? haha i dont have a clue, i dont think obama would want that to get out, which means the media wont cover it I do not engage much in the political discussions around here (I don't think anybody here could accurately identify my political thoughts). However, I find this current Presidential campaign fascinating. I know the Democrat powers that be want Hillary to throw in the towel; but, God help me, I want this thing to go to the convention undecided. Can you imagine the compelling political theater that would come out of that convention? Sweet fancy Moses...It would be compelling. The Democrats have managed to take what in January looked like a slam dunk win in November to a real horse race. I know I will take some hits here, but Obama reminds me a bit of the Robert Redford character in The Candidate. If the campaigns manage to stay out of the gutter, this could be the most interesting and entertaining race in modern American Presidential history. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Lieberman is a worthless sack of dogshit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 maybe everyone has been too swept up with the start of baseball?????? haha i dont have a clue, i dont think obama would want that to get out, which means the media wont cover it Why would Obama care? Seriously. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 I heard this on NPR a couple days ago. Don't get me started on my opinions about Lieberman swinging from party to party. I personally felt that once he lost the CT Democratic primary he shouldn't have been allowed to switch to Independent status and run again. But that he did, still touting the Democratic priorities. And now, here he is, siding with a Republican. No better or worse than what happened in elections past in Missouri, New Jersey and Illinois. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Lieberman is a worthless sack of dogshit.Why? I find myself agreeing with Lieberman, to an extent. I also don't have a problem with politicains jumping ship from one party to another if the party lines become too muddied or lose the perspective/ideals/etc. that drew the person to them in the first place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Lieberman is a worthless sack of dogshit. I am guessing that you didn't have that opinion in 2000. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I am guessing that you didn't have that opinion in 2000.I did, actually. Worst decision Gore ever made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Why? I find myself agreeing with Lieberman, to an extent. I also don't have a problem with politicains jumping ship from one party to another if the party lines become too muddied or lose the perspective/ideals/etc. that drew the person to them in the first place. But he jumped from Democrat to Independent only because he lost. That's not a valid reason in my book. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I did, actually. Worst decision Gore ever made. I can't go along with much of Leeb's voting record. Pro retroactive immunity (for the telecoms), pro -Iraq war, and on and on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I like Lieberman, but his support of McCain is nothing new. He's been campaigning for him for 3 or 4 months at least. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aricandover Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Lieberman is a worthless sack of dogshit. anyone in cahoots with L. Brent Bozell III, is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I'm not necessarily a supporter of Lieberman, just curious what makes him a sack of shit compared to any other politician. Also, I still have no problem with him becoming an Independent even if it is partially due to losing an election. I'm sure he's aware of the support he lost in doing so as well as the support he gained in doing so. I'm more offended by politicians towing the party line regardless of their personal beliefs than I am of politicians crossing party lines to justify their beliefs. I'm not saying this is evident in what Lieberman did, but it could be a contributing factor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I'm not necessarily a supporter of Lieberman, just curious what makes him a sack of shit compared to any other politician. He's a warmonger. He consistently lies about our middle east policy and perpetuates falsehoods to try to go to war with Iran. I'm more offended by politicians towing the party line regardless of their personal belives than I am of politicians crossing party lines to justify their beliefs. I'm not saying this is evident in what Lieberman did, but it could be a contributing factor. I have no problem with the guy changing parties. I don't want him as a Democrat, and he fits with the Republicans better anyway, on the important issues. I just wish he'd be honest about it rather than blaming the Democrats for being too partisan by not kowtowing to the Bush agenda enough (which is absurd on it's face considering how much they do let Bush get away with). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So you disagree with him on things, is what you are trying to say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So you disagree with him on things, is what you are trying to say.maybe what he's saying is not simply that he disagrees with him but that his moral compass is generally reprehensible, making him a "sack of shit". It would be one thing if it were his policy that he thought made him a sack of shit, but to me it seems like he thinks he's just a bad guy due to the fact he makes up generally faulty claims to send people to war. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 maybe what he's saying is not simply that he disagrees with him but that his moral compass is generally reprehensible, making him a "sack of shit". It would be one thing if it were his policy that he thought made him a sack of shit, but to me it seems like he thinks he's just a bad guy due to the fact he makes up generally faulty claims to send people to war. Ahhh...the coarsening of discourse compliments of the internet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I have no problem with the guy changing parties. I don't want him as a Democrat, and he fits with the Republicans better anyway, on the important issues. I just wish he'd be honest about it rather than blaming the Democrats for being too partisan by not kowtowing to the Bush agenda enough (which is absurd on it's face considering how much they do let Bush get away with). I don't think he's being dishonest. He's liberal on most issues, but I guess he considers national defense/foreign policy to be the overriding issue. And he's correct about Democrats moving away from the hawkish foreign policy of JFK (and to some degree Clinton) even if you disagree with him that it's a bad thing. maybe what he's saying is not simply that he disagrees with him but that his moral compass is generally reprehensible, making him a "sack of shit". It would be one thing if it were his policy that he thought made him a sack of shit, but to me it seems like he thinks he's just a bad guy due to the fact he makes up generally faulty claims to send people to war. What's with all the hatin' on sacks of shit? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So you disagree with him on things, is what you are trying to say. Sometimes issues are important enough to get angry about. Some political disagreements are just wanky pissing contests. Others are the difference between people living and dying. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Why would Obama care? Seriously. cause of this "the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain." Dems love obama, he is like their new kennedy, i think obama wouldnt want that title given to mccain, and lets be serious the real story is why obama can only manage a 37 in bowling haha Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Lieberman is a worthless sack of dogshit. don't diss on dogshit like that! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Sometimes issues are important enough to get angry about. Some political disagreements are just wanky pissing contests. Others are the difference between people living and dying. But all that about lying and what not has more to do with you being in disagreement with him on this issues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Sure, but why would Obama care that Lieberman is saying that? There are few people less influential with Democratic voters than Joe Lieberman. I don't see why he should be afraid of Lieberman's words "getting out". He's endorsed McCain already. Anything he says is going to be seen in that context, and this isn't a particularly damaging charge anyway. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.